Greek workers work the hardest in Europe

[RGacky3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155304

So enough with the racist "lazy south europeans" stuff, as if they deserve the economic troubles they got because they just sit on their ass.

BTW, before you spout off about the productivity, most of that is technology.

[#FF0000]

the greeks are basically the americans of europe

[Lynx]

The Greeks are the scapegoat of Europe. Thus, a mythology was required.

[bugsbunny]

The correct title on the BBC News is:

Are Greeks the hardest Workers? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155304)

So they are not sure. It is not "Greeks workers work the hardest" as what Gacky wrote.

This is because, as the article pointed out, the situation is very complex.

Let me list out the complications of cross border comparisons according to the BBC article:

1)Different countries have different methods of collecting statistics.
2)Lots of people in Germany work part time as compared to Greece. This brings down the average number of hours worked.
3)The Greeks prefer to work for themselves as shopkeepers, farmers etc. Self employed people work longer hours because its in their interest to do so.

I have one more to add that is not in the BBC article.

4)Greek civil servants are under worked. They don't have much to do. I read somewhere that they are even paid to come on time!

The reason is that the Civil Service is traditionally a place of patronage. Its where politicians reward their supporters with cushy civil service jobs that are unproductive and a waste of taxpayers' money. But I am sure that the "hours" they put in still show up in the statistics.

[bugsbunny]

Here is an interesting article on this same subject.

Are Greeks Lazy? (http://www.greekdefaultwatch.com/2011/12/are-greeks-lazy.html)

What this article is saying is that the more people in the family that is working, the lower the average number of hours worked. Since Germany has more people working, the average number of hours worked is lower.

[bugsbunny]

Here is an article on the Greek Debt Crisis:

Historical Background on the Greek Debt Crisis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/researchnotes/WorkingPaper-5.pdf)

It says that the Civil Service has traditionally been a place of patronage where politicians reward their supporters.

[seventeethdecember2016]

The Greeks are a bunch of PIIGS.

Here is an article on the Greek Debt Crisis:

Historical Background on the Greek Debt Crisis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/researchnotes/WorkingPaper-5.pdf)

It says that the Civil Service has traditionally been a place of patronage where politicians reward their supporters.
Not that I don't respect your ideas, but next time please don't post more than one comment at one time.
It is true that patronage is a problem in Greece, but that is just an underlying problem. Patronage only accounts for a SMALL percentage of the Greek debt.

[danyboy27]

It says that the Civil Service has traditionally been a place of patronage where politicians reward their supporters.
This kind of behavior exist in pretty much all countries, its hardly something that is unique to the greek state.

[apawllo]

Interesting that the 10 most productive nations are also the 10 that work the fewest hours, and 9 out of 10 of the least productive nations are among the 10 that work the most. I suppose that shouldn't come as a huge surprise...

[bugsbunny]

Interesting that the 10 most productive nations are also the 10 that work the fewest hours, and 9 out of 10 of the least productive nations are among the 10 that work the most. I suppose that shouldn't come as a huge surprise...

Yes, that has always been the pattern for centuries. Productivity increases result on higher standard of living and fewer hours worked.

I have come across data from the US showing that people in the 19th century working like say 12 hours a day (can't recall the exact number) but they had lower productivity in those days of course.

So when productivity goes up, companies make more, people get higher wages. Now some people, given a choice between higher pay with long hours or lower pay with shorter hours, may opt for lower pay but shorter hours. As the overall pay rises, they may find that working shorter hours will still get them the same income as before.

So if I recall my econs class, it seems about 50-50. Half the productivity gains ended up with higher income and the other half was used for more leisure time.

So gains in productivity are good. How do we increase productivity? Firstly, you start with education and that begins when we are kids. Education leads to other things - better work skills, better organization and ability to deal with new technologies. Capital investments - use of labor saving machies - also increases productivity. This means that the owners of capital must be incentivized to invest. Otherwise, they might as well spend their money if they can't get a good return for their money. Then there are the right cultural attitudes - diligence, work ethics, honesty, frugality. In these areas, the German and other N Europeans beat the Greeks.

For example, the further south you go, the more corruption you will find (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/). Germany is rated 8 on the Corruption Index (very good) while Greece is rate 3.4 (very lousy).

Improvements in all these areas I cited will boost productivity.

Here is a study showing the hours worked by the American worker (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us)since its early days.

In 1830 it was about 70 hours a week. In 1900, it was about 60 hours a week. In 1988 it was about 40 hours. So standard of living rose. People had rising incomes since 1830 - which means better nutrition, healthcare, housing etc. At the same time, they had more leisure time!

[bugsbunny]

This kind of behavior exist in pretty much all countries, its hardly something that is unique to the greek state.

Depends on the country. It hardly exists in the N America and N Europe. But it exists in countries where the people have a culture of corruption. The Greeks are very corrupt according to the Corruption Perception Index. See my previous post.

[eric922]

Depends on the country. It hardly exists in the N America and N Europe. But it exists in countries where the people have a culture of corruption. The Greeks are very corrupt according to the Corruption Perception Index. See my previous post.
I'm not commenting of this specific incident, but to say that the U.S. government is somehow less corrupt than Greek or any "democracy" is stupid. The U.S. government is probably the most corrupt of all the so called "democracies." Only in America do we think its a good idea to let corporations spend unlimited amounts of money on canidates campaigns. That is the definition of corruption.

[RGacky3]

Productivity has much more to do with access to technology than anything else.

No shit in the 1900s productivity was much worse, they had much less technology.


So when productivity goes up, companies make more, people get higher wages. Now some people, given a choice between higher pay with long hours or lower pay with shorter hours, may opt for lower pay but shorter hours. As the overall pay rises, they may find that working shorter hours will still get them the same income as before.


Thats not at all the case, when productivity goes up profits go up (empirically), UNLESS you have a labor shortage.

OR unless you have extremely powerful unions. In the United States since the 1970s productivity shot up, as did profits, whereas wages flatlined and dropped.


This means that the owners of capital must be incentivized to invest. Otherwise, they might as well spend their money if they can't get a good return for their money. Then there are the right cultural attitudes - diligence, work ethics, honesty, frugality. In these areas, the German and other N Europeans beat the Greeks.

I live in a country with HUGE amounts of productivity and very low unemployment, and believe me the work ethic here is no better than greece.

As far as capital investment, you need demand for it in the first place.

In germany wages went up slower than inflation, whereas the rest of europe did not, so Germany could produce things cheaper, plain and simple, they also had an influx of cheap labor from the east.

Infact the country where wages went up as fast as inflation and still did ok was France.

[bugsbunny]

I'm not commenting of this specific incident, but to say that the U.S. government is somehow less corrupt than Greek or any "democracy" is stupid. The U.S. government is probably the most corrupt of all the so called "democracies." Only in America do we think its a good idea to let corporations spend unlimited amounts of money on canidates campaigns. That is the definition of corruption.

Nothing wrong with that. If unions are allowed to spend their money on electio campaigns, why can't corporations? Fair is fair.

[bugsbunny]

Productivity has much more to do with access to technology than anything else.

No shit in the 1900s productivity was much worse, they had much less technology.


That is true.




Thats not at all the case, when productivity goes up profits go up (empirically), UNLESS you have a labor shortage.

OR unless you have extremely powerful unions. In the United States since the 1970s productivity shot up, as did profits, whereas wages flatlined and dropped.


That is true again. Its supply and demand. China's conversion into capitalism and free trade meant that suddenly you have a huge supply of labor. So wages stagnated even as productivity gained.

This is an unusual situation that is different from the trend from 1830 tilll about 1980. Labor in rich countries have to wait a while till chinese wages catch up before they benefit from free trade.




I live in a country with HUGE amounts of productivity and very low unemployment, and believe me the work ethic here is no better than greece.


Where are you from?



As far as capital investment, you need demand for it in the first place.


Capital investment needs the possiblity of profits. Don't forget the owners of capital want some profits or why should he invest?

He is risking his money. Businesses can fail, as you know.

So he expects more than what can be obtained from the bank fix deposi or government bonds.

Labor can also play a part. If you have educated, skilled, hardworking, honest and to be honest cheap labor, owners of capital will be more willing to risk their money.

How cheap should labor be? Well, the more hardworking, skilled, educated and honest labor is, the more they can charge for their services! Owners of capital don't mind paying more and investing more in capital goods if they get more productive workers.

[Revolutionair]

Nothing wrong with that. If unions are allowed to spend their money on electio campaigns, why can't corporations? Fair is fair.

Because I don't like to let the war industry have a huge say in global politics, that's why.

[RGacky3]

That is true again. Its supply and demand. China's conversion into capitalism and free trade meant that suddenly you have a huge supply of labor. So wages stagnated even as productivity gained.

The wages stagnated in the 70s, China opened up in the 90s. So its not that.


This is an unusual situation that is different from the trend from 1830 tilll about 1980. Labor in rich countries have to wait a while till chinese wages catch up before they benefit from free trade.

They won't catch up, believe me, at least not for most people, infact unemployment is growing there.


Where are you from?

Norway


Capital investment needs the possiblity of profits. Don't forget the owners of capital want some profits or why should he invest?


Yeah ...


Labor can also play a part. If you have educated, skilled, hardworking, honest and to be honest cheap labor, owners of capital will be more willing to risk their money.

How cheap should labor be? Well, the more hardworking, skilled, educated and honest labor is, the more they can charge for their services! Owners of capital don't mind paying more and investing more in capital goods if they get more productive workers.

Whats your point?

As wages drop so does demand, then you have a crisis in Capital, that was my point and you totally ignored it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Productivity in neoclassical economics is measured in the amount of time it requires you to make an X amount of money. This is because neoclassical economics holds to the idea that productivity is rewarded with a proportionally higher income.

"Productivity" merely tells you how long it takes for you to earn an X amount of money, not how hard you work for it.

[danyboy27]

Depends on the country. It hardly exists in the N America and N Europe. But it exists in countries where the people have a culture of corruption. The Greeks are very corrupt according to the Corruption Perception Index. See my previous post.

The corruption perception index is based on survey and ''experts'' opinions on the subject, not on the actual data gathered from actual corruption cases on the field.

The majority of american might not think their country is corrupt but it does not mean its the truth tho. If you look at all the war profiteering that happened in Iraq and afghanistan its obvious that the american governement is corrupted to the bone. Lobbying is not a actual form of reconized corruption, but lets face it, if you give 1 million dollar to a senator to pass a law that will favor your particular buisness, its corruption.

North american might be easier to fool, but it does not change the fact that corruption is something verry present here has well.

[bugsbunny]

The wages stagnated in the 70s, China opened up in the 90s. So its not that.


Not true. Deng Xiao Ping opened China up in 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping#Opening_up) shortly after he gained power over the true Maoist gang of four who were trying to practice Socialism.

The 1970s were also a period where America was having stagflation. So I am not surprised if wages stagnated in the 70s. So did profits.

[RGacky3]

Not true. Deng Xiao Ping opened China up in 1978 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping#Opening_up) shortly after he gained power over the true Maoist gang of four who were trying to practice Socialism.


Not nearly to the point where major outsourcing could happen, also Deng considered his version to be socialism as well.


So I am not surprised if wages stagnated in the 70s. So did profits.

No .... Profits did not.

http://dailybail.com/storage/chart-corporate-profits-employee-wages.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1318432887443

Also, our productivity WENT UP

https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif

[bugsbunny]

Bugs Bunny, the wascally wabbit said:


Labor can also play a part. If you have educated, skilled, hardworking, honest and to be honest cheap labor, owners of capital will be more willing to risk their money.

How cheap should labor be? Well, the more hardworking, skilled, educated and honest labor is, the more they can charge for their services! Owners of capital don't mind paying more and investing more in capital goods if they get more productive workers. Then Gacky replied:


Whats your point?

As wages drop so does demand, then you have a crisis in Capital, that was my point and you totally ignored it. The point is that virtue is rewarded. Honest, hardworking and frugal people will grow richer than lazy, dishonest and spendthrift people. Let me give you an example. Suppose an investor is thinking of whether to start a business in Scandinavia or in Greece.

He does his sums. He has to estimate how many of his products he can sell and at what price. Then he estimates how much he is going to spend. He finds that labor is cheaper in Greece and he can thus make more money in Greece than in Scandinavia. So he starts his factory or business there.

But he did not know that the Greeks are corrupted. Government officials have to be bribed or things cannot get done. So after paying off his rental, wages, raw materials and the hefty bribes, he finds he can't make a profit.

So when the unions ask for a higher wage, he can't give it to them. No matter how long they strike, they can't squeeze blood out of stone. He has no profit to give them.

Corruption is rare in N Europe. He soon realizes that he would have done better in Scandinavia despite the higher wages because he does not have to spend money on bribes. So he shuts down his business and goes to Scandinavia. So the virtuous Scandinavian worker end up with higher wages than the Greeks. The moral of the story is if some people are richer than others, its usually because they have more virtue than the other fellow.

Stop thinking that capitalism is going to collapse. It is not. You leftists are brainwashed into looking at every little problem as a sign of the impending doom of capitalism. Booms and busts are part of capitalism. Busts are actually signs of the renewal or rebirth which testifies to the staying power of capitalism. Busts are when bad companies are destroyed by the market and replaced by good companies.

This has been going on for centuries. Have you heard of the Tulip crash (http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes2.asp#axzz1oKNk2J57)? In the 16th century, the Dutch were speculating on Tulip bulbs. One bulb, at one stage of the mania, cost the same as a house! Then the inevitable crash came and the whole country became poor for a generation. Sounds like modern times. But Capitalism survived.

Now for your comment about wages dropping. According to your graph in one of the threads, the wages of US workers stagnated for 30 years. It did not drop. While wages in rich countries stagnated, wages in China went up. So profits of companies do not go down. In fact, US companies are doing fine. The large companies can sell anywhere in the world where there are customers and make their products anywhere in the world where there are cheap workers.

See these links:

US stocks up despite so so earnings (http://www.nbr.com/economy/stocks-rise-despite-us-company-so-so-earnings-20120217)

The headline is misleading. So I will excerpt the important part:


In fact, fourth quarter profits for S&P 500 firms so far are up only 9 percent. At the
start of the quarter, analysts believed they would be 15 percent. Nine
percent isn’t awful, but it’s mediocre when you consider S&P 500 earnings
growth has averaged 24 percent in the last two years.So earnings have been growing in the last two years at 24% despite lousy economy, high unemployment, stagnant wages etc. The author calls a 9% growth in earnings as "so-so". That's because investors have been spoilt by expectations of 15% growth following 24% average growth in the past two years. So where is your drop in profits? Where is your crisis in capital? Capital is doing fine. If wages go up 9%, the unions will be popping the champagne and if its 24% they would be flying to the moon.

I tell you why capital is doing fine. GM is a good example. While sales in the US is not good, business is booming in China thanks to rising wages there. Read this article:

GM does well - in China (http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/17/gm-does-well-in-china/)

Excerpt:


SHANGHAI, China - When Xiao Hongjun, a 38-year-old engineer, went looking to buy his first car he knew exactly what he wanted: a Buick.There are millions of Xiao Hongjun in China because of a more capitalist economy. Thanks to people like him, there is no crisis in capitalism like leftists imagine. Capital is doing fine - even if the American worker is not. But the Chinese worker is.

[RGacky3]

He does his sums. He has to estimate how many of his products he can sell and at what price. Then he estimates how much he is going to spend. He finds that labor is cheaper in Greece and he can thus make more money in Greece than in Scandinavia. So he starts his factory or business there.

But he did not know that the Greeks are corrupted. Government officials have to be bribed or things cannot get done. So after paying off his rental, wages, raw materials and the hefty bribes, he finds he can't make a profit.

So when the unions ask for a higher wage, he can't give it to them. No matter how long they strike, they can't squeeze bood out of stone. He has no profit to give them.

That does not happen in N Europe. He soon realizes that he would have done better in Scandinavia despite the higher wages. So he shuts down his business and goes to Scandinavia. So the virtuous Scandinavian worker end up with higher wages than the Greeks. The moral of the story is if some people are richer than others, its usually because they have more virtue than the other fellow.


This is so full of shit, but I'll break down point by point.


But he did not know that the Greeks are corrupted. Government officials have to be bribed or things cannot get done. So after paying off his rental, wages, raw materials and the hefty bribes, he finds he can't make a profit.

So when the unions ask for a higher wage, he can't give it to them. No matter how long they strike, they can't squeeze bood out of stone. He has no profit to give them.


Government corruption is not a "virtue" problem, its an enforcement and systemic proble.

Also you need to worry about MARKET, i.e. where are you gonna sell stuff, labor might be more expensive in scandanavia but the taxes on imports are higher, you can't sell the stuff in Greece because people don't have wages, so you need a market.

If he has no profit he'd be out of buisiness, they always have a profit.


That does not happen in N Europe. He soon realizes that he would have done better in Scandinavia despite the higher wages. So he shuts down his business and goes to Scandinavia. So the virtuous Scandinavian worker end up with higher wages than the Greeks. The moral of the story is if some people are richer than others, its usually because they have more virtue than the other fellow.


Scandanavians are no more virtuous, we work much less hours, take much higher vacations and have incomprehensibally stronger unions and stronger socialist parties.

But what Scandanavia DOES have has a strong domestic market, nationalized oil to support infastructure and so on, free education and healthcare, and high import taxes that keep industry IN scandanavia.

putting it to "virtue" is a hunk shit and shows a gross missunderstanding of economics.


Stop thinking that capitalism is going to collapse. It is not. You leftists are brainwashed into looking at every little problem as a sign of the impending doom of capitalism. Booms and busts are part of the capitalism. Busts are actually signs of the renewal or rebirth which testifies to the staying power of capitalism. Busts are when bad companies destroyed by the market and replaced by good companies.


Capitalism is collapsing.

A bust is not a couple companies collapsing, its entire industries and entire economies going downhill, and they arn't followed by a recovery, demand plummets, finances freeze up, excess capacity grows, profits dwindle, unemployment grows which means wages drop which menas more plummeting of demand.

The only thing that fixes this stuff is HUGE government spending be it military or otherwise.

Since WW2, the ONLY thing holding up the US economy has been government invenstment in military and government subsidizing the financial industry (through low interest fed loans).

Capitalism does'nt work anymore buddy, its not a buisiness cycle its a downward spiral.


This has been going on for centuries. Have you heard of the Tulip crash (http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes2.asp#axzz1oKNk2J57)? In the 16th century, the Dutch were speculating on Tulip bulbs. One bulb, at one stage of the mania, cost the same as a house! Then the inevitable crash came and the whole country became poor for a generation. Sounds like modern times. Capitalism survived.


Capitalism as is has only really been around for about 200 years, or even less, capitalism of the industrial revolutoin turned into corporate capitalism, now you basically have financial capitalism, Capitalism has followed the path marxist have predicted all along.

Capitalism requires exponential growth, i.e. growth on top of growth, while at the same time consolidation of industry, now we are at the point where all of capitalism is financialized and the financial industry is on life support, the rest is help up with state money.


Now for your comment about wages dropping. According to your graph in one of the threads, the wages of US workers stagnated for 30 years. It did not drop.

Adjusted for inflatoin and raise in cost of living it dropped.


While wages in rich countries stagnated, wages in China went up. So profits do not go down. In fact, US companies are doing fine. The large companies can sell anywhere in the world where there are customers and make anywhere in the world where there are cheap workers.

Show me where median wages went up, actually you'd need living standards to go up, becuase if communities existed outside the market juts fine (i.e. without wages) in china, then were forced to join the market, wages would have gone up, simply becuas ethere are more workers, but living standards did not.

Your right with the second sentance, but even world wide you have growing profits and wages stagnating, and you also have a growing demand gap.

BTW, the Chinese capitalism you like to praise, is not nearly the type of capitalism I presume you support, oh and talk about corruption ...

[NorwegianCommunist]

the greeks are basically the americans of europe

Whaaat?
Of the hard working?

[RGacky3]

Whaaat?
Of the hard working?

Working class American work pretty damn hard.

I've worked in both Norway and the United States, and I can tell you that for sure.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Working class American work pretty damn hard.

I've worked in both Norway and the United States, and I can tell you that for sure.

Workers in the US tend to work longer hours with less vacation and benefits than workers in Europe and Asia.

https://motherjones.com/files/images/8-640.jpg